Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 363 of 363
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH

  1. #301  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Oh, and organic molecules don't break down at high pressures - in fact, high pressure is one of the factors that contributes to the retention of organic matter over geological time in the form of fossil fuels.
    Do you have any papers that prove normal bacteria in high pressures without heat vents?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Well I only pointed out the fact that S is very heavy.
    Not at all. 1kg of sulphur is far lighter than 300kg of feathers.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    It is on you as a supporter of the mainstream to prove an organism that uses a sulfer redux cycle and floats on the surface of sea water.
    There's nothing mainstream about that, it's completely bizaar. Proto-archaea are unlikely to have floated, because firstly a greater abundance of 'food' would be found in locations such as hydrothermal vents, and secondly because UV light would damage them. The ability to float would not be any benefit, but would actually be a hinderence. But I'm still curious as to why you think it would be impossible, when huge steel ships can be made to float?
    We have been through this and you are not paying attention.

    The gene to protect bacteria againt the intense heat of thermal vents did not appear until later in the rRNA.

    Pay attention.
    Who said they had to be inside the vents? Nearby would be sufficient - even assuming this was the only place iron sulphides etc. were found in the proterozoic (BIFs suggest widespread abundance of iron throughout the precambrian, for instance).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Can you explain emergent electron transport technology?
    Technology?

    What about literally every chemical reaction?
    Sure, let's see, every chemical reaction is life. Do I have your theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Well I only pointed out the fact that S is very heavy.
    Not at all. 1kg of sulphur is far lighter than 300kg of feathers.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    It is on you as a supporter of the mainstream to prove an organism that uses a sulfer redux cycle and floats on the surface of sea water.
    There's nothing mainstream about that, it's completely bizaar. Proto-archaea are unlikely to have floated, because firstly a greater abundance of 'food' would be found in locations such as hydrothermal vents, and secondly because UV light would damage them. The ability to float would not be any benefit, but would actually be a hinderence. But I'm still curious as to why you think it would be impossible, when huge steel ships can be made to float?
    We have been through this and you are not paying attention.

    The gene to protect bacteria againt the intense heat of thermal vents did not appear until later in the rRNA.

    Pay attention.
    Who said they had to be inside the vents? Nearby would be sufficient - even assuming this was the only place iron sulphides etc. were found in the proterozoic (BIFs suggest widespread abundance of iron throughout the precambrian, for instance).
    Do you have a mainstream paper?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    We are back to the UV early earth environment with your theory.
    My theory being, that there was UV and it had nothing to do with my theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    That means God put iron and sulfer into shallow ocean waters for this electron model you need.
    God, and/or hydrothermalism and/or surface weathering mechanisms.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Here is the problem, iron and sulfer exist only around deep water vents.
    Modern day analogy = fail. The main characteristic of the hadean and proterozoic eras is that they are not correlatable to modern day conditions. The biosphere as we know it didn't start forming untill the archean.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Now, let's assume there are shallow heat vents for this iron and sulfur source. Then, we are back to the problem of intense heat which would destroy any organism until later in the evolution period of bacteria.
    Assuming that bacteria evolved in cold water and then later moved to hot water. Why not the other way around?

    And why would the bacteria need to be inside the vents? Why not in cooler water that was simply close to the vents? They wouldn't be preyed on by other bacteria, because other bacteria didn't exist yet.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Well I only pointed out the fact that S is very heavy.
    Not at all. 1kg of sulphur is far lighter than 300kg of feathers.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    It is on you as a supporter of the mainstream to prove an organism that uses a sulfer redux cycle and floats on the surface of sea water.
    There's nothing mainstream about that, it's completely bizaar. Proto-archaea are unlikely to have floated, because firstly a greater abundance of 'food' would be found in locations such as hydrothermal vents, and secondly because UV light would damage them. The ability to float would not be any benefit, but would actually be a hinderence. But I'm still curious as to why you think it would be impossible, when huge steel ships can be made to float?
    We have been through this and you are not paying attention.

    The gene to protect bacteria againt the intense heat of thermal vents did not appear until later in the rRNA.

    Pay attention.
    Who said they had to be inside the vents? Nearby would be sufficient - even assuming this was the only place iron sulphides etc. were found in the proterozoic (BIFs suggest widespread abundance of iron throughout the precambrian, for instance).
    Do you have a mainstream paper?
    For the existance of BIFs? Really?

    You actually don't know anything, do you?

    Do some f*cking research!
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Can you explain emergent electron transport technology?
    Technology?

    What about literally every chemical reaction?
    Sure, let's see, every chemical reaction is life. Do I have your theory?
    No, essentially every chemical reaction involves electron transport/transfer.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Oh, and organic molecules don't break down at high pressures - in fact, high pressure is one of the factors that contributes to the retention of organic matter over geological time in the form of fossil fuels.
    Do you have any papers that prove normal bacteria in high pressures without heat vents?
    What makes a bacterium 'normal'? What makes you assume bacteria that survive at low pressures are less complicated than bacteria that survive at high pressures?

    Bacteria certainly do survive at high pressures.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/83/24/9542.full.pdf
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Chinglu, how exactly did your god overcome all these problems you've made up?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Forum Freshman lawsinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    18
    HI chinglu:

    Let me ask you three questions if you don't mind.

    First, what is wrong in the derivation below?

    FORMULA >>STATEMENT

    W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

    F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

    W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

    W = (kg x m/s) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

    W = (kg x m x m) / s >>apply laws of exponents

    W = ( kg x m ) / s >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

    W = kg x (m/s) >>combining

    W = kg x (m/s) >>simplifying

    W = M x V. >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

    W = m x c. >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

    E = m x c >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

    Second,
    are chemical elements matter or energy? Why?

    Third, which is correct 1 +1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 10 ? Why?

    Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    Emergent behavior is behavior that is not reducible to properties of the parts, usually not predictable from the parts, attributed to the behavior of the parts and have a downward causal influence on the parts.

    The parts of a complex system follow simple rules that lead to complex behavior. Take the flocking pattern of birds. A bird follows simple rules such as don't bump into its neighbour, don't get caught by a predatr and follow the group as a whole. These rules are broad enough to allow unpredictability how the parts fufill the rules. One bird may have to dive to avoid a predator, another swerve the right to avoid it's neighbour but the all follow the group as a whole. The system superveines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Chinglu, how exactly did your god overcome all these problems you've made up?
    Don't know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Well I only pointed out the fact that S is very heavy.
    Not at all. 1kg of sulphur is far lighter than 300kg of feathers.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    It is on you as a supporter of the mainstream to prove an organism that uses a sulfer redux cycle and floats on the surface of sea water.
    There's nothing mainstream about that, it's completely bizaar. Proto-archaea are unlikely to have floated, because firstly a greater abundance of 'food' would be found in locations such as hydrothermal vents, and secondly because UV light would damage them. The ability to float would not be any benefit, but would actually be a hinderence. But I'm still curious as to why you think it would be impossible, when huge steel ships can be made to float?
    We have been through this and you are not paying attention.

    The gene to protect bacteria againt the intense heat of thermal vents did not appear until later in the rRNA.

    Pay attention.
    Who said they had to be inside the vents? Nearby would be sufficient - even assuming this was the only place iron sulphides etc. were found in the proterozoic (BIFs suggest widespread abundance of iron throughout the precambrian, for instance).
    Your basic problem with the iron sulfide argument is that it would not move. The sulfer redux cycle is inefficient and thus could not produce enough energy for an iron based lifeform.

    Next, if this creature tried to evolve in the opne ocean, it would sink and die.

    Finally, as I have already explained, the gene necessary to withstand the heat of vents did not occur until later. So, the distance to the vent must be increased. But, the inefficient sulfer redux cycle at that distance would not produce the energy needed to sustain life since there are not creatures using the iron/sulfer based redux cycle around today that are not very close to vents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Oh, and organic molecules don't break down at high pressures - in fact, high pressure is one of the factors that contributes to the retention of organic matter over geological time in the form of fossil fuels.
    Do you have any papers that prove normal bacteria in high pressures without heat vents?
    What makes a bacterium 'normal'? What makes you assume bacteria that survive at low pressures are less complicated than bacteria that survive at high pressures?

    Bacteria certainly do survive at high pressures.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/83/24/9542.full.pdf
    I am OK with that. Exactly when did the gene evolve so that bacteria can withstand high pressures that would normally crush carbon based life forms. That gene is crucial to your argument.

    I do not belive in the all of a sudden out of no where arguments, i.e. magic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    Emergent behavior is behavior that is not reducible to properties of the parts, usually not predictable from the parts, attributed to the behavior of the parts and have a downward causal influence on the parts.

    The parts of a complex system follow simple rules that lead to complex behavior. Take the flocking pattern of birds. A bird follows simple rules such as don't bump into its neighbour, don't get caught by a predatr and follow the group as a whole. These rules are broad enough to allow unpredictability how the parts fufill the rules. One bird may have to dive to avoid a predator, another swerve the right to avoid it's neighbour but the all follow the group as a whole. The system superveines.
    This is an arm waving philosophical argument. This is a science discussion and hence, all conclusions must have a logical and mathematical basis at its foundations.

    Finally, emergent behavior which operates in a downward fashion requires the future to operate on the past since evolution proceeds from the past to the future.

    So, this argument is perfectly invalid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by lawsinium View Post
    HI chinglu:

    Let me ask you three questions if you don't mind.

    First, what is wrong in the derivation below?

    FORMULA >>STATEMENT

    W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

    F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

    W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

    W = (kg x m/s) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

    W = (kg x m x m) / s >>apply laws of exponents

    W = ( kg x m ) / s >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

    W = kg x (m/s) >>combining

    W = kg x (m/s) >>simplifying

    W = M x V. >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

    W = m x c. >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

    E = m x c >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

    Second,
    are chemical elements matter or energy? Why?

    Third, which is correct 1 +1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 10 ? Why?

    Thanks
    Yea, well I am not a puzzle dude. So I will pass.

    Why don't you join the discussion with specifics about the arguments being presented. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #317  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #318  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Your basic problem with the iron sulfide argument is that it would not move. The sulfer redux cycle is inefficient and thus could not produce enough energy for an iron based lifeform.
    It wouldn't be iron-based, it would be carbon based (as its modern-day descendants are), and the sulphur redox cycle is efficient enough for modern day thermophiles to thrive by occupying that niche.

    Quote Originally Posted by nokton View Post
    Next, if this creature tried to evolve in the opne ocean, it would sink and die.
    Why would it sink? Why would sinking lead to death?

    Quote Originally Posted by nokton View Post
    Finally, as I have already explained, the gene necessary to withstand the heat of vents did not occur until later.
    Why would they need to live inside the vents? Modern-day chemosynthetic organisms live inside the vents because they are outcompeted elsewhere by other organisms - other organisms which had not evolved in the proterozoic.

    Quote Originally Posted by nokton View Post
    So, the distance to the vent must be increased. But, the inefficient sulfer redux cycle at that distance would not produce the energy needed to sustain life since there are not creatures using the iron/sulfer based redux cycle around today that are not very close to vents.
    See the above comment. Also, the sulphur and iron content of the early oceans was much higher (as indicated by BIFs).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #319  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    I am OK with that. Exactly when did the gene evolve so that bacteria can withstand high pressures that would normally crush carbon based life forms. That gene is crucial to your argument.
    Which gene, specifically? Can you show me a single gene which enables any bacterium to survive abyssal pressures?

    What makes you say there has to be a gene with this function, when life would have emerged in the conditions we're talking about? And as already mentioned, they wouldn't need to have lived at abyssal depths anyway.

    Which gene allows you to live at 'normal' temperatures and pressures? Why couldn't a self-replicating aggregate of DNA and other organic molecules survive at high pressures? Why do you assume that life is "hard-wired" for certain conditions and that surviving outside of these requires specialised genetics?

    Your argument is completely fallacious. You can't justify the necessity of the evidence you're demanding.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #320  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Chinglu was shown various examples of emergence very early on. His reply was that, because people saw it happen, it must have been in some way staged.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #321  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Why don't you go ahead and prove your assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #322  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Your basic problem with the iron sulfide argument is that it would not move. The sulfer redux cycle is inefficient and thus could not produce enough energy for an iron based lifeform.
    It wouldn't be iron-based, it would be carbon based (as its modern-day descendants are), and the sulphur redox cycle is efficient enough for modern day thermophiles to thrive by occupying that niche.
    Right, but we already established in this thread that the gene necessary for life to survive in a hot environment did not come until later in evolution in rRNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #323  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Chinglu was shown various examples of emergence very early on. His reply was that, because people saw it happen, it must have been in some way staged.
    There has been no examples proven in this thread of emergence. There has been many humans claiming it is true.

    Too bad no examples have yet been proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #324  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    I am OK with that. Exactly when did the gene evolve so that bacteria can withstand high pressures that would normally crush carbon based life forms. That gene is crucial to your argument.
    Which gene, specifically? Can you show me a single gene which enables any bacterium to survive abyssal pressures?
    I cannot, but there is a gene that protects some bacteria from extreme temperatures.

    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #325  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Why don't you go ahead and prove your assertions.
    WHY??? you have yet to prove that abiogensis cant have happened the way you claim. You've just moved from strawman to strawman as you are proved wrong. Why are you SOOOOO vested in life having a creator??
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #326  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    I am OK with that. Exactly when did the gene evolve so that bacteria can withstand high pressures that would normally crush carbon based life forms. That gene is crucial to your argument.
    Which gene, specifically? Can you show me a single gene which enables any bacterium to survive abyssal pressures?
    I cannot, but there is a gene that protects some bacteria from extreme temperatures.

    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Illogical. If self-replicating molecules emerged under some given set of conditions, and then some descendant species adapted to another set of conditions incrementally over a long time, why does it logically follow that they should be able to instantly return to the initial set of conditions? That's an idiotic assertion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #327  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Except that within this hypothesis (which I hasten to add, you have asserted I am claiming, where in actual fact I am not), life emerged at high pressures. The extreme pressures, therefore, are the extremely low pressures in which we are living now, and we have therefore had to evolve mechanisms to tolerate them, which has lead to a physiology that is no longer suited to the 'normal' high temperatures.

    In reality, life needn't have emerged at abyssal depths; probably was chemosynthetic; and didn't have specialised genes for coping with the conditions in which it emerged.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #328  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    I am OK with that. Exactly when did the gene evolve so that bacteria can withstand high pressures that would normally crush carbon based life forms. That gene is crucial to your argument.
    Which gene, specifically? Can you show me a single gene which enables any bacterium to survive abyssal pressures?
    I cannot, but there is a gene that protects some bacteria from extreme temperatures.

    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Illogical. If self-replicating molecules emerged under some given set of conditions, and then some descendant species adapted to another set of conditions incrementally over a long time, why does it logically follow that they should be able to instantly return to the initial set of conditions? That's an idiotic assertion.
    Uh, we are trying to decide whether emergence is possible.

    So far, we do not have a viable method of electon transport (chemistry) in the cell.

    Do you have a sequence of emergence in which electon transport is performed by the primitive life form prior to the gene that protects the life from from extreme heat?

    If so, present it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #329  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg View Post
    "This is an arm waving philosophical argument."

    Autocatalytic set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No it's not. Emergence has been verified by science. Autatalytic set theory is one theory to the origin of life that uses it.
    Why don't you go ahead and prove your assertions.
    WHY??? you have yet to prove that abiogensis cant have happened the way you claim. You've just moved from strawman to strawman as you are proved wrong. Why are you SOOOOO vested in life having a creator??
    Wrong.

    You have failed to provide evidence of electron transport in early life.

    You need chemistry for life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #330  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Except that within this hypothesis (which I hasten to add, you have asserted I am claiming, where in actual fact I am not), life emerged at high pressures. The extreme pressures, therefore, are the extremely low pressures in which we are living now, and we have therefore had to evolve mechanisms to tolerate them, which has lead to a physiology that is no longer suited to the 'normal' high temperatures.

    In reality, life needn't have emerged at abyssal depths; probably was chemosynthetic; and didn't have specialised genes for coping with the conditions in which it emerged.
    This is a failed argument.

    Carbon based molecules decay in high pressure.

    Try again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #331  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post

    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Illogical. If self-replicating molecules emerged under some given set of conditions, and then some descendant species adapted to another set of conditions incrementally over a long time, why does it logically follow that they should be able to instantly return to the initial set of conditions? That's an idiotic assertion.
    Uh, we are trying to decide whether emergence is possible.
    Uh. You made a logically incorrect statement. I pointed it out. You can refute it if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    So far, we do not have a viable method of electon transport (chemistry) in the cell.

    Do you have a sequence of emergence in which electon transport is performed by the primitive life form prior to the gene that protects the life from from extreme heat?

    If so, present it.
    Not relevant to the point I just made. You're not obliged to address it (and indeed you seem to be carefully avoiding doing so), but I prefer to expose faulty arguments when I see them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #332  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You are claiming that no life form needs protection from extreme pressure. Then all life forms can live in extreme pressure which is a contradiction.
    Except that within this hypothesis (which I hasten to add, you have asserted I am claiming, where in actual fact I am not), life emerged at high pressures. The extreme pressures, therefore, are the extremely low pressures in which we are living now, and we have therefore had to evolve mechanisms to tolerate them, which has lead to a physiology that is no longer suited to the 'normal' high temperatures.

    In reality, life needn't have emerged at abyssal depths; probably was chemosynthetic; and didn't have specialised genes for coping with the conditions in which it emerged.
    This is a failed argument.

    Carbon based molecules decay in high pressure.

    Try again.
    Citation needed. Citations plural, in fact. Carbon-based molecules are tricky that way, there are a lot of them and they all behave quite differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #333  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Why are you so vested in life having a creator??
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #334  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why are you so vested in life having a creator??
    That's a fun question. The reasons people cling to myths are as many and varied as people. I think though, that it mostly runs like this. If science has shown the creation myths are incorrect well then what next? Got to draw a line in the sand somewhere. He's got the right idea, in a way. Would you worship a deity who is constantly shrinking into the gaps left by science? Spend forever re-interpreting your sacred texts so they fit the known facts- ish? If you sort-of squint and re-define words like "the"? That'd be even more tiring than chucking the whole lot in the bin and just keeping up with reality as best we understand it. Simplest thing is to just decide what's true and refuse to budge. It's classic human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #335  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Simplest thing is to just decide what's true and refuse to budge. It's classic human.
    Do you suppose that's an emergent property?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #336  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Simplest thing is to just decide what's true and refuse to budge. It's classic human.
    Do you suppose that's an emergent property?
    It can't be proven using mathematics and logic, so no. It is therefore a trait imbued in us by the UltraSheep, a deity I just invented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #337  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    52
    Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve - positive sign or flash in the pan?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #338  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Carbon based molecules decay in high pressure.
    What, all carbon-based molecules? Citation please.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #339  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    There has been no examples proven in this thread of emergence. There has been many humans claiming it is true.

    Too bad no examples have yet been proven.
    Fractals.

    So yeah, you are going to deny it, claim no example, tell us that it is unrelated to biology, decline to give any logical alternative, say goddidit, and continue on. How boring. How uninformative. You are quite happy denying that science tells us anything and being ignorant yourself on how anything functions. You are not here to learn or teach. I can only assume you are here to provoke. There are thousands like you. What makes you worth attention?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #340  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    If you see trolls as a comedian that you're heckling, it's a lot more fun.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #341  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    If you see trolls as a comedian that you're heckling, it's a lot more fun.
    That is sort of my point. This troll doesn't have any unique angles or quirks. I can find clones of this troll everywhere. This one is an obscure drop in the ocean, one-trick pony and needs to provide a reason to give it attention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #342 Origin of life on earth (part2) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    67
    ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH (PART 2)
    BY SUHAIL JALBOUT

    In the first article I stated that the origin of single-cell organisms is a by-product of galactic dynamic condition and is not due to planetary dynamic conditions.[1] In this article I shall elaborate on this statement.

    Up to the present date nobody has the proof about the origin of life on Earth. Even if single-cell organisms are created in laboratories, their origin is still undetermined. The only logical proof is if single-cell organisms are discovered in our solar system. This task takes a very long time due to the huge size of our solar system and the minute size of the single-cell organisms. If they cannot be discovered at all in space, then the probability of Earth being their origin becomes feasible. Our universe is about 14.5 billion years old and single-cell organisms appeared only 3.5 billion years ago on our planet. So how can anybody imagine that our universe which contains billions of galaxies and each galaxy contains billions of stars had to wait 11 billion years for life to emerge? This is against all logic.

    The question that follows is: how can this issue be resolved in the interim period? I believe the most logical approach to solve this problem is by using estimations. In the forthcoming analysis I have developed two equations to estimate, in our galaxy, the number of single-cell organisms that are created during the formation of stars and the number of single-cells that are created on Earth-like planets. However, before I proceed, it is important to discuss the existence of the major components that are necessary for the formation of single-cell organisms in space and on Earth-like planets:

    WATER

    Recent studies revealed that water plays an important role and it is an essential component in star formation.[2] Stars cannot form without the prior presence of water and single-cell organisms cannot form without the prior presence of water. Every star in our galaxy has water in its orbit. However, Earth-like planets receive their water from the bombardment of comets, asteroids and/or collapsed water-ice rings. These bodies may contain already single-cell organisms in a frozen state. We can thus conclude that water which is needed for life emergence is available in space and on Earth-like planets.

    ORGANIC COMPONDS

    Organic compound, which are the building blocks of single-cell organisms, exist in space. These compounds can also be produced on Earth as per Stanley Miller and Harold Urey experiment. However, this experiment does not eliminate the probability that organic compounds are deposited on Earth-like planets by the bombardment of comets, asteroids, and/or collapsed water-ice rings. In conclusion the essential building blocks for living cells exist in space and on Earth-like planets.

    ENERGY

    The energies that are produced on Earth-like planets, after they receive their water, are: lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruption, hurricanes, tornados, bombardment from comets and asteroids, and finally tidal waves caused by their moons if they exist. These energies are incomparable to the energies that are produced during the formation of stars. When a formed sphere ignites to become a star, billion of tons of mater eject from its surface. Some of the ejected matter is dispersed in space; others will fall back on the sphere while those emitted from a large area around its equator goes through the disc that surrounds the sphere. The speed of the emission is very close to the speed of light. Since energy and mass are interrelated, the matter that penetrates the disc will have tremendous power.[3] The collision between the emitted mater and those in the disc could produce single-cell organisms. We can thus conclude that there is no comparison between the energies that are produced on Earth-like planets and those produced during the formation of nuclear stations (stars) in space.

    Based on the above, I developed the following life emergence equations to estimate the number of single-cell organisms in our galaxy:

    EMERGENCE EQUATION DUE TO STAR FORMATION

    Let:

    Ng = Fa x Fb x Fc x Fd x Fe x Ff

    Where:

    Ng = the estimated number of single-cells that are produced during the formation of stars
    Fa = the estimated number of stars in our galaxy (200 x 10 ^9)
    Fb = the fraction of stars that have water in their orbit (100%)
    Fc = the estimated amount of water orbiting our Sun (5.23 x 10^25 tons of water)
    Fd = the fraction of stars with an average amount of water as our Sun (50%)
    Fe = the fraction of stars that can produce life (100%)
    Ff = the estimated number of single-cells that are created per 1 ton of water (1/10^9)

    Therefore,

    Ng = 5.23 x 10^27 single-cells

    EMERGENCE EQUATION DUE TO EATH-LIKE PLANETS

    Let:

    Np = Fa x Fb x Fc x Fd x Fe x Ff x Fg

    Where:

    Np = the estimated number of single-cells that are created on Earth-like planets
    Fa = the estimated number of stars in our galaxy (200 x 10^9)
    Fb = the fraction of stars that have planetary systems (50%)
    Fc = the fraction of the planetary systems that have Earth-like planets (50%)
    Fd the fraction of Earth-like planets that can produce life (100%)
    Fe = the estimated amount of water on Earth (1.33 x 10^18 tons of water)
    Ff = the fraction of Earth-like planets with an average amount of water as Earth (50%)
    Fg = the estimated number of single-cells that are created per 1 ton of water (1/10^9)

    Therefore,

    Np = 3.32 x 10 ^ 19 single-cells

    CONCLUSION

    Dividing Ng / Np gives:

    Ng/Np = 157,000,000

    This means the creation of single-cell organisms during the formation of stars is 157 million times more probable than their creation on Earth-like planets.

    END NOTES
    [1] www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/23461-origin-life-earth.html
    [1] 2012forum.com Board index Modern Science Science
    [2] unisci.com/stories/20022/0408021.htm - Cached
    [2] arxiv.org astro-ph - Cached
    [2] ETH Life ETH Life News' Archive - Cached
    [3] 2012forum.com ... Potential Threats Other Space Nasties - CachedSimilar-
    [3] www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/9206-nebular-ripple-hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #343  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1
    nerds
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #344  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Your basic problem with the iron sulfide argument is that it would not move. The sulfer redux cycle is inefficient and thus could not produce enough energy for an iron based lifeform.
    It wouldn't be iron-based, it would be carbon based (as its modern-day descendants are), and the sulphur redox cycle is efficient enough for modern day thermophiles to thrive by occupying that niche.
    Right, but we already established in this thread that the gene necessary for life to survive in a hot environment did not come until later in evolution in rRNA.
    Could you provide a link that state that this gene came later in evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #345  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    I disappoint you! Your calculations are wrong at the heart! In extreme conditions, there are not many single-celled organisms! Not to mention the fact, that in these circumstances have arisen! And most importantly: On our planet there are micro-organisms do not contain carbon! They are based on the sulfur! So be the first on earth could they! A compound of sulfur and acid - electrolyte is good! This is a good argument for conservation and generation of energy from the environment!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #346  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    What organisms are not carbon based? Name one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #347  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    740
    Suhail Jalbout - I have no problem with looking for evidence of life in space. There will inevitably be some - from a nearby planet we know has had life for several billion year. It will derive from ejecta from big meteorite hits on Earth. There could be remnants of dinosaurs out there! Whether there is evidence of origins other than Earth is a reasonable question IMO, best answered empirically - with care taken to identify stuff of Earth origin. I'm doubtful of abiogenesis any place that doesn't have water in a liquid state for prolonged periods - such as in nebulae or stellar 'clouds'. Single celled organisms - with their fragility and complexity - look much more likely to be blasted out of, than into, existence by ejecta from star formation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #348  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by paradoks789 View Post
    I disappoint you! Your calculations are wrong at the heart! In extreme conditions, there are not many single-celled organisms! Not to mention the fact, that in these circumstances have arisen! And most importantly: On our planet there are micro-organisms do not contain carbon! They are based on the sulfur! So be the first on earth could they! A compound of sulfur and acid - electrolyte is good! This is a good argument for conservation and generation of energy from the environment!
    While there are extremophile forms of life (bacteria and algea) that use a sulphur reduction cycle to produce energy they are still carbon based life forms.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #349  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    There is also a not unimportant factor in the search for extraterrestrial life! In order to understand and accept the need to answer the question of how it is not organic substances and compounds formed the first life! And do not look for ways to spread in the universe! I am not in vain in the last post spoke about energy! Indeed, precisely because they were first protein! Experimenting with getting them artificially by recreating the conditions of those early times were not crowned with success so far because it does not take into account the important part! Silicon!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #350  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by paradoks789 View Post
    There is also a not unimportant factor in the search for extraterrestrial life! In order to understand and accept the need to answer the question of how it is not organic substances and compounds formed the first life!
    What was it then? And what is your evidence for this?

    And do not look for ways to spread in the universe! I am not in vain in the last post spoke about energy! Indeed, precisely because they were first protein!
    That is not very clear; what were first protein? Proteins are organic molecules so doesn't that contradict your first sentence?

    Experimenting with getting them artificially by recreating the conditions of those early times were not crowned with success so far because it does not take into account the important part! Silicon!
    Not true. Many investigations of pre-biotic chemistry look at the mineral substrate. Most of these are silicate minerals, which could have catalysed various reactions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #351  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    This element, and some crystals in the aggregate obrasuyut a simple mechanism for storing and discharging energy into the environment is able to carry information. And also there is another question to be answered, which will calculate the location of other life forms in the universe. Where did the information for the construction of the DNA strands? The answer is simple! From space. Many of the heavenly bodies are sending radio waves with a frequency. If we can identify those which by their binary frequency of the DNA code can make a simple organism, we can determine the vector direction of these signals and it otseit those objects on which life is possible!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #352  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by paradoks789 View Post
    Where did the information for the construction of the DNA strands? The answer is simple! From space.
    What is the evidence for that?

    Many of the heavenly bodies are sending radio waves with a frequency. If we can identify those which by their binary frequency of the DNA code can make a simple organism, we can determine the vector direction of these signals and it otseit those objects on which life is possible!
    What is the "binary frequency of the DNA code"? Does that even make sense?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #353  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    I was referring to silicon in the environment, not in the oganicheskogo connection!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #354  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    The problem of scientists recording the signals from space that they have to produce, but do not communicate with each other!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #355  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Мой переводчик очень плохой.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #356  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Вы говорите по русски?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #357  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    My translator is very bad. Do you speak Russian?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #358  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by paradoks789 View Post
    I was referring to silicon in the environment, not in the oganicheskogo connection!
    So was I.

    Quote Originally Posted by paradoks789 View Post
    My translator is very bad. Do you speak Russian?
    No, sorry.

    But do you have any evidence for any of these claims?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #359  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Yes, all of the above I can prove to the experiments!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #360  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Some experimentation is so simple that they can spend at home outside the laboratory. But for more complex experiments require powerful computers and laboratory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #361  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Do you have access to information and opportunity to conduct some experiments in a good lab?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #362  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    32
    Last edited by Geomensch; January 9th, 2013 at 03:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #363  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Geomensch View Post

    http://innovative-planetary-science.page.tl/Home.htm
    Please stop spamming your pseudoscience on other threads.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •